AAGL position statement: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in benign gynecology.

The AAGL publishes Position Statements on the state of minimally invasive gynecology to improve the overall quality of women’s gynecologic care. The AAGL follows a process to assure that any conflicts of interest are disclosed and appropriately addressed and that relationships with manufacturers and other third parties do not influence the development process. The Board of Trustees of the AAGL proposed that a Position Statement be developed by leaders in the field of minimally invasive surgery to provide the members of the society a document outlining the current status of robotic surgery and its application in the management of patients with benign gynecologic diseases. The Position Statement has been developed by a group of individuals with experience and interest in the assessment of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The goal of this document is to present an unbiased view, informed by the available literature, of the critical aspects of robotic surgery that impact the management of patients with gynecologic conditions. Background

[1]  G. Barbash,et al.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  S. von Felten,et al.  Robotic Compared With Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2012, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  G. Cundiff,et al.  Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Review , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  E. Geller,et al.  Impact of robotic operative efficiency on profitability. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  P. Anderson,et al.  Robotic‐assisted gynaecological surgery—establishing training criteria; minimizing operative time and blood loss , 2008, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[7]  M. Hsieh,et al.  Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[8]  O. Lavie,et al.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy--a retrospective matched control study. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  E. Geller,et al.  Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. , 2012, Urology.

[10]  Stephen A. Cohen,et al.  Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. , 2010, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. , 2010, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[12]  Concepcion R. Diaz-Arrastia,et al.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[13]  Andrea Mariani,et al.  Vaginal cuff closure after minimally invasive hysterectomy: our experience and systematic review of the literature. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Vaginal Cuff Dehiscence in a Series of 12,398 Hysterectomies: Effect of Different Types of Colpotomy and Vaginal Closure , 2012, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  P. Magtibay,et al.  Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

[16]  C. Nezhat,et al.  Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  Usha Seshadri-Kreaden,et al.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[18]  Benjamin Nutter,et al.  Robotic-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Abdominal Myomectomy: A Comparison of Surgical Outcomes , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  J. Jelovsek,et al.  Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  Jon I. Einarsson,et al.  Increasing Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: Effect on Cost and Complications , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  A. Gargiulo,et al.  Robot-Assisted Laparoscopy, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopy, and Single-Site Laparoscopy in Reproductive Surgery , 2011, Seminars in reproductive medicine.

[22]  Benjamin R. Lee,et al.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? , 2002, Urology.

[23]  S. Srouji,et al.  Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[24]  Arnold P Advincula,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. , 2007, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[25]  J. Hentz,et al.  Robotic hysterectomy: technique and initial outcomes. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[26]  T. Hernandez-Boussard,et al.  A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. , 2010, Surgery.

[27]  E. Geller,et al.  Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. , 2013, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[28]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Hysterectomy Rates in the United States, 2003 , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[29]  Michael P Steinkampf,et al.  Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[30]  C. Nezhat,et al.  Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy in Gynecological Surgery , 2006, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[31]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies. , 2012, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[32]  M. Degueldre,et al.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[33]  B. Noble,et al.  Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. , 2009, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[34]  T. N. Payne,et al.  A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[35]  A. Advincula,et al.  Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. , 2009, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[36]  G. Schaer,et al.  Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. , 2010, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[37]  Mercedes Espada,et al.  Robotic Adnexectomy Compared With Laparoscopy for Adnexal Mass , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[38]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. , 2010, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[39]  O. Gemer,et al.  Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with and without a Robot: Stanford Experience , 2009, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[40]  Aagl Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. , 2011, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[41]  E. Lukacz,et al.  Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: Comparing Operative Times, Costs and Outcomes , 2011, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[42]  Tommaso Falcone,et al.  Tubal Anastomosis by Robotic Compared With Outpatient Minilaparotomy , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[43]  Jon I Einarsson,et al.  Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy Compared With Standard Laparoscopic Myomectomy , 2012, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[44]  C. Steiner,et al.  Hysterectomy Rates in the United States 1990–1997 , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[45]  R Kevin Reynolds,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. , 2006, American journal of surgery.

[46]  Sarah L. Cohen,et al.  Increasing Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: Effect on Cost and Complications , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[47]  C. Ascher-Walsh,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. , 2010, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[48]  L. Meyn,et al.  Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[49]  J. Dubuisson,et al.  Risk factors for uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy. , 2010, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[50]  G. Chow,et al.  Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. , 2006, The Journal of urology.